Axe FX VS. TC electronic 2290

Here's my $.02.

I have two 2290s. They are great units. I first used one on my very first electric guitar recording back when I was 9. At that point, the 2290 had already been out for over ten years. As crappy as my recording techniques were back then (still are now...?) the delays still sound phenomenal. The 2290 was a beast at the time and it sounds good now.

But... The delays in the Axe-Fx II sound better. Period. To my ears, I have absolutely no reason to use the 2290s based on comparative delay quality alone. The Axe blows it out of the water. Add in the fact that the Axe does, well, everything else it does, and I find very little use for all of the rack gear my family's studio has acquired throughout the years.

The Axe II is, currently, the most advanced piece of digital processing gear available for guitarists. Few would argue with that (and even fewer on this forum). So, I think it's fairly simple. For analog, yes, old technology can sound better, can be more appealing, more coveted, etc. For a little analogy, it's pretty much exactly like vinyl. Some love vinyl. It sounds great.

No one, however, prefers the sound of a Sony CDP-101 (the first CD-player) to that of the latest audiophile lossless unit. Really. When was the last time you heard someone pining for an archaic digital technology? (Barring those who are professedly seeking low fidelity, bit-crushers, and the like.) The 2290 and the Axe-Fx II are digital units. And digital technology just gets, inarguably, better (and in this case better sounding) with time. Period. Programming gets better, algorithms more accurately capture the true nature of sounds, chips get denser, Moore's Law, etc. In my opinion, there's very little room for argument here, and no reason for anyone to get up in arms. TC discontinued the thing for a reason...

I guess my final point is this: Marshall and Fender have spent the last 40+ years trying to create new analog amps that capture the magic sound of their late 60s offerings. Line 6 discontinued the POD and came out with the second POD and the third POD. And then FAS came out with the Axe-Fx. No one lusts after the "vintage" sound of an original POD. And many (most? all?) who have played both prefer the Axe-Fx II. With digital, newer almost always=better.
 
Last edited:
Here's my $.02.
The 2290 and the Axe-Fx II are digital units. And digital technology just gets, inarguably, better (and in this case better sounding) with time. Period.

I'm not sure this is 100% true... doesn't the 2290 have an analog portion in it (not just the analog input but something with the mod mixed in as analog)? Call me lazy for not looking it up. I don't have a 2290 but would really like to hear the comparisons for myself as requested earlier in this thread. I don't know what my opinion will be but I do know that digital does not equal digital. I can think of one other piece of gear that is digital but has not been replicated yet (Korg A3).

On another note, is the 2290 model in the AxeFX really any different than the Digital delays with particular settings? For kicks, I tried both in XY with all of the settings matching and they indeed sound the same so I kind of assume the 2290 isn't actually "modeled" but simply approximated using the digital delay.
 
Last edited:
Here's my $.02.

When was the last time you heard someone pining for an archaic digital technology?

Since when is the 2290 archaic digital technology? It was light years ahead of it's time & in many ways, still is. Bottom line, it sounds great. So does the Axe. They sound different. Use the one you like best but no way in heck does the Axe come even remotely close to blowing the 2290 out of the water IMHO!
 
I can think of one other piece of gear that is digital but has not been replicated yet (Korg A3).

But does a piece of gear have to be specifically "replicated" by name and to do everything just the way it did to be superseded? Can't something that is better all around just take its place without claiming to be an exact replica?
 
some people have a sound in their head, and the only thing that will do is the real deal, regardless if new is better. Some things also have a "sound", and that could be do to the old digital stuff, and age.
 
On another note, is the 2290 model in the AxeFX really any different than the Digital delays with particular settings? For kicks, I tried both in XY with all of the settings matching and they indeed sound the same so I kind of assume the 2290 isn't actually "modeled" but simply approximated using the digital delay.
yes. there aren't any "models" as such in the II like the amps models which are actual models (let's say the word again...models), but settings that get you very close to the model intended.

back in early Ultra days we tried to get very close to certain effects by dialing for hours and comparing here on the forum. these days are unfortunately long gone since more and more users just "demand" to get everything straight away and otherwise complain. I guess putting settings of well known effects into the II helps a bit in that regard.
 
But does a piece of gear have to be specifically "replicated" by name and to do everything just the way it did to be superseded? Can't something that is better all around just take its place without claiming to be an exact replica?

Sorry, this is not really my point but for some people the answer is yes, it must be replicated. I'm not sure why we have an issue with this concept. The AxeFX is a modeler intended to replicate sounds. It has IR's for that purpose and models a variety of specific devices. The "real" devices are a basis for comparison and its accuracy is likely the number one reason why we bought it in the first place.

Back to the 2290... I suspect there is a distinct 2290 sound that the AxeFX does not readily replicate. I want to hear the comparison so that I can understand. If it's a desirable unique sound, I would definitely request that Fractal model it with higher precision. I tend to trust the people who use the 2290 regularly and are saying the AxeFX isn't as good. At the same the Axe obviously does things that a 2290 but if it's the 2290 that you really care about, the other Axe bonus features are meaningless.

PS I'm not after 100% replication but I do want to capture elements of sounds. In the case of the 2290, my primary reference point is the Edge from U2 and there are definitely elements in his sound that I haven't nailed using the AxeFX. There are lots of factors but if for some reason the real 2290 has extra clarity or specific modulation or whatever that when coupled with an AC30TB results in that amazing sound, I'd like to know. But at this point, I don't have a set of clean examples of the 2290 that I can use a reference point. Thinking about getting a 2290 if just briefly...
 
back in early Ultra days we tried to get very close to certain effects by dialing for hours and comparing here on the forum. these days are unfortunately long gone since more and more users just "demand" to get everything straight away and otherwise complain. I guess putting settings of well known effects into the II helps a bit in that regard.

Let's bring those days back. I actually enjoy doing this. Some will say it's a waste of good guitar playing time. I'll just call it a hobby it makes people feel better :0). The 2290 was on "tackle" list before this thread started and I was hoping to get someone to post some clean examples.
 
In the case of the 2290, my primary reference point is the Edge from U2 and there are definitely elements in his sound that I haven't nailed using the AxeFX. There are lots of factors but if for some reason the real 2290 has extra clarity or specific modulation or whatever that when coupled with an AC30TB results in that amazing sound, I'd like to know.

I suspect the fact that he's Edge coupled with about $500,000 worth of production, mastering, recording, etc. has a lot to do with the "elements in his sound" that people have trouble nailing ;)
 
and also used a Line6 pedal for overdrives, which was mystifying to me. : )
$$$ not = to taste.

If you want to ape his sounds shoot for live.
The studio sounds really did cost more than most of our homes and weren't meant to be anything other than amazing recorded sounds. even he, with his unobtanium budget, doesn't redo them all that consistently live.
he has fun! : )
 
I suspect the fact that he's Edge coupled with about $500,000 worth of production, mastering, recording, etc. has a lot to do with the "elements in his sound" that people have trouble nailing ;)

I'm well versed in his equipment and sound. A 2290, VOX AC30TB, a boost stomp, an eq stomp, a strat in middle bridge, you will have that signature sound. There are lots of variations but the essence is in that combination. You can hear it in pretty much any location that he plays - either a stripped down rig or full blown rig with "album" processing. The elements I'm referring to really do come from the basic pieces and that's what I'm interested in. I don't want to pay for the 2290 :0) or an AC30 :0)
 
There is some good food in Sweden; meatballs? as far as Chicago, where I was born and raised, Lake Michigan is polluted , full of pcb's, the fish cant be eaten though fun to catch, maybe they have good cleaning techniques. I have always heard Manhattan of all places has THE best tapwater in the states. ps I have spoken with water treatment experts, and most bottled water is actually tap, or worse.
 
There is some good food in Sweden; meatballs? as far as Chicago, where I was born and raised, Lake Michigan is polluted , full of pcb's, the fish cant be eaten though fun to catch, maybe they have good cleaning techniques. I have always heard Manhattan of all places has THE best tapwater in the states. ps I have spoken with water treatment experts, and most bottled water is actually tap, or worse.

Ahhh Sweden. I hear the echoes of sweet water. Better than tap ;0)

That Manhattan thing has to be an urban myth or something. Seems like every city I've been in claims this and every time I fall for it. I'll take Dasani any day.

PS there's a joke in that last sentence... nudge nudge.
 
Which shows a guy that can have anything he wants uses the 2290!

Not to get too confrontational, but Matt spend several weeks in Dublin setting Edge up with the Axe-Fx II and MFC... Now, I don't know, since I'm not Matt or Edge, but if I had to guess, I'd bet the 2290 got replaced...

Please don't read any ill tone into these posts...just discussing.
 
I'm well versed in his equipment and sound. A 2290, VOX AC30TB, a boost stomp, an eq stomp, a strat in middle bridge, you will have that signature sound. There are lots of variations but the essence is in that combination. You can hear it in pretty much any location that he plays - either a stripped down rig or full blown rig with "album" processing. The elements I'm referring to really do come from the basic pieces and that's what I'm interested in. I don't want to pay for the 2290 :0) or an AC30 :0)

If it helps, when I get some time next week, I'll sit down and A/B my 2290 and Axe II and see if I can't cook up a patch that I think is a dead match. Then I'll send it your way.
 
Thanks ccroyalsenders. Could you possibly record a dry track (24bit) and a wet one at the same time with the 2290 that captures its "signature" sound? That would give me the ability to reamp the dry track through the AxeFX to see if I can replicate it. If not, I'd still be glad to hear the wet one.

PS if Matt could come out and say directly, yes the Edge and his tech agreed that the AxeFXII can replicate the 2290, I'd believe it. They had the luxury of A/Bing with original isolated tracks. U2 is fairly up front about all of the gear so I'm sure when they pop up in venues sans 2290's and they're playing that era of songs with no tone difference, then we'll know. He has a redundant rack and it's not just for the blinking lights. I'm sure that he'd sacrifice the old gear for reliability and space if possible but only if his classic sounds are captured. I'm nearly certain the line 6 stuff will go but I'm not sure about the core... maybe the Lexicon stuff, some stomps, and the older delays. The biggest change will probably be in his multi-studio, travel gear, and Dallas' rig.
 
Not to get too confrontational, but Matt spend several weeks in Dublin setting Edge up with the Axe-Fx II and MFC... Now, I don't know, since I'm not Matt or Edge, but if I had to guess, I'd bet the 2290 got replaced...

Please don't read any ill tone into these posts...just discussing.

I heard too that he was checking out the Axe. Doesn't mean anything got replaced or that he will even keep the Axe. Neither of us has any facts on that. Maybe Matt can shed some light. Either way, would not change my opinion of either device. I think they are both great.
 
If you're wanting to copy the Edge sound, one of the things that has the biggest impact on the tone is actually the smallest thing... the pick. A Herdim pick turned upside down using the grip to strum the strings is absolutely essential, I'd say even more so than any particular delay unit. He uses upwards of 20 distinctly different guitars, many different effect units (including delays), and even multiple amps almost every show....one unique guitar pick with a very particular sound for his entire career.

As far as Edge and gear goes, he's always been more into specialised tools, not Swiss army knives. He reckons that pretty much every piece of gear does at least one thing really well. He believes it's his job to find that one thing. While I personally believe he's trying to replace some of his ageing gear that is breaking down on him more and more often with something more reliable, he may just be looking for that one thing the Axe-FX does. We won't know until we see how he uses it in his rig.

The Axe-FX originally wasn't meant to be a modelling unit per se. It became that, to a certain extent. It was actually meant to be a swiss army knife of guitar tone which gave you the separate elements that made up many different effects so you could roll your own so to speak. That was clearly written in the original manual that came with my Ultra which, IIRC, was back at FW 5. I'm not sure that language is still in there (I truthfully haven't opened my II manual yet), but many people seem to forget that. Most effects are not just one single effects, but multiple stacked effects (delay, drive, EQ, modulation all together known as a particular delay sound). The original intent was to stack those effects yourself to create different tones. Many people still don't understand that using 4 or 5 effect blocks together to get a tape delay sound was originally a design feature, not flaw. It was supposed to be one step from buying a DSP and writing the code yourself. I'm in no way saying that FAS couldn't or shouldn't strive to copy the sounds of some of those units, in fact I'd really like them to do it more, just that this wasn't the original intent.

A couple years ago I was changing the viscous coupling on a Land Rover I used to own. In the process, one of the bolts with an odd size and thread ended up getting stripped. I had my Land Rover sitting unusable in my driveway late on a Friday afternoon and a gig the next day. I called a couple dozen different people trying to get a replacement or, due to it's odd size, a repair to the stripped bolt. Finally one guy who who couldn't help me that day, just as I was hanging up the phone to call someone else, had a thought pop in his head. Luckily I heard him before I hung up. He told me about a small shop that specialised in fasteners and had pretty much everything. Turns out it was on a side street a couple blocks from my house and I never even knew it was there. I went in and they had the diameter and thread I needed but it was too long. I bought the bolt and 2 nuts, put the nut's on and hacksawed the bolt to the right length, sanded it smooth, then screwed both the nuts off to fix the thread. It took a little work, but in the end, I had a bolt that worked magnificently and even a Land Rover specialist would have to take off and inspect closely to tell it wasn't stock. Sure, if they started selling the exact one, I'd probably get it and install it next time I was doing some work on the car, but until then.....

I think if people would remember the original concept of the Axe-FX these sorts of threads would digress much less. Not saying this one has gone that way yet, just trying to give some perspective. I think it really is only a matter of time. Look at the tape delay and rotary. Those were 2 of my biggest requests back from when I first got my Ultra. As far as the rotary goes, a couple years ago in the old forum, I started a thread which became fairly long, where I laid out very specifically what a good rotary block would and should contain. Cliff chimed in and said he'd look at it. Not long after that, Cliff updated it to almost exactly the feature list I laid out in that thread. The rotary block in the II is even closer to that original thread. I'm not saying I alone got the block changed, there were obviously many people who thought it needed work, but what I laid out is almost exactly what is in the rotary block today. The only real differences are where he has made it even more flexible. There are quite a few stories like that where threads have directly impacted what is now in the AFX. I can think of a number of them off the top of my head that we now all enjoy in the AFX. If you can lay out EXACTLY what you feel is missing from the current block, and many others agree with you, your chances of getting it altered in a future firmware go up dramatically. BTW, "it doesn't quite have that 2290 sound" isn't exact.

All IME, YMMV....
 
Back
Top Bottom